Constitutional and Statutory Limitations on Property Rights Flashcards
(24 cards)
What are the two standards of review for Constitutional issues?
Strict Scrutiny
Rational Review
What is Strict Scrutiny?
applies for fundamental rights (suspect class falls under this). Very high standard to prove the discrimination is necessary; government almost always loses. Must prove:
1) Compelling State Interest - general welfare is not a compelling state interest
2) No less drastic alternative
What is Rational Review?
must prove there was a rational relationship between the ordnance and the purpose of the ordnance. Much lower standard; great deference to the decision maker. “fairly debatable”
- Exercise of Police power
- General welfare - provide for a better community.
Are property rights a fundamental right?
No. they are not named in the Constitution.
What are the two steps when analyzing a case?
- Is there a government/state action? If yes; then
2. Which standard of review (strict scrutiny or rational relationship) should be used?
Shelley v. Kramer - racially restrictive covenants
Rule 1: Restrictive agreements standing alone cannot be regarded as violative of any rights guaranteed to petitioners by the 14th Amendment.
Individuals or groups can discriminate as long as there is no government/state action involved (at the time of this case).
Rule 2: Judicial enforcement of restrictive covenants are considered state action and thus cannot be discriminatory under the 14th Amendment.
What are suspect classes?
race, gender, etc.
Village of Belle Terre
Students are not a protected class - rational relationship standard of review.
City of Edmonds v. Oxford House
Fair Housing Act made disabled persons a suspect class - strict scrutiny applies.
Remedial statutes are made to fix a problem and given broad interpretation. Exemptions should be interpreted narrowly (specific to the circumstances)
Mount Laurel
Court determined low income persons were a projected class (judicial activism) and government had a duty to provide affordable housing.
City’s zoning regulations would have met the rational relationship test for the general welfare.
What is the Mount Laurel test for affordable housing requirement?
- Is it a developing community? If yes, bound by Mount Laurel (must provide affordable housing)
- Region - must look outside just that community and at the region overall. Affordable housing must be done on a regional basis (if nearby area is developing lots of industry, then your community may have to provide affordable housing).
- Fair share - each community in the region must provide its fair share of housing.
Is Hawaii required to provide affordable housing?
No legal duty for the state to ensure affordable housing.
What are the three ways to get rid of a covenant? (West Hills Baptist Church v. Abbate)
- Abandonment - three churches already built on the parcel could show the restrictions have been abandoned (built after the lawsuit initiated).
- Change of Circumstances in the neighborhood.
- Terminated by the parties (agreement of the landowners)
What must be shown when strict scrutiny applies?
• If an ordnance, government must show a compelling state interest and no less burdensome alternative. Must also prove a state action (obvious in an ordnance, but must state this for exam).
Covenant - same test.
(Abbate is a minority rule, Restrictions on religious meetings and constructing churches will normally be upheld and enforcement would not be deemed state action.)
How can speech and religion be restricted?
Time/Place/Manner
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000) (RLUIPA)
- Cannot place a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion
- Individual Assessment - e.g., conditional use permit (requires government to individually approve certain permitted uses)
- If there is a substantial burden and an individual assessment of that particular religious exercise, you must use strict scrutiny to review.
Guru Nanak v. County of Sutter
- Shik Temple on Agricultural land denied by city, conditional use allowed churches.
- Substantial burden placed on Temple, and individual assessment = strict scrutiny
Planned Use Development (PUD)
zoning, also called “common interest community”
Constitutional equipoise
balancing two kinds of rights; eg: property and constitutional rights
City of Ladue v. Gilleo
Court uses strict scrutiny - Signs are a form of speech and protected by the free speech clause. However, signs can cause issues such as obstructing views and districting drivers.
Rule: City can place reasonable restrictions on time, place and manner for signs.
Restrictions in this case were not reasonable
What are the two distinct grounds for challenging the constitutionality of a regulation restricting signs?
1) The measure restricts too little speech because its exemptions discriminate on the basis of the signs’ message
2) They prohibit too much protected speech.
Schmid Test to determine the parameters of rights of speech and assembly upon privately owned property
- The nature, purposes, and primary use of such private property, generally, its “normal” use,
- The extent and nature of the public’s invitation to use the property, and
- The purpose of the expressional activity under-taken upon such property in relation to both the private and public use of the property.
Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers HOA
New Jersey Supreme Court adopted Schmid and Coalition Tests:
Court determines that expressional activities are not unreasonably restricted.
• Contractual relationship between the HOA and owners
• Rules and regulations are essential to the fundamental nature of the communal living arrangement.
• Signs are allowed in certain areas
• Residents can distribute their own newsletter.
• Plaintiffs are members of the association and can seek to make changes to the rules or regulations. Can also run for office
Coalition Test - expansion of Schmid
general balancing of expressional rights and private property interests
